( 1 ) THIS rule is directed against a notice under Section 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The notice is dated the 18th March, 1965, and seeks to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 1948-49. The notice is addressed by the ITO, " E" Ward, District IV (I), Calcutta, to " M/s. Bhimraj Banshidhar of 180, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta".

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that in July, 1947, there was a partial partition of an HUF, known as Bhimraj Banshidhar of 180, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta, whereby the business of the family and the assets and liabilities pertaining to those businesses were partitioned among the following members. (1) Nagarmal Modi; (2) Chandi Prasad Modi; (3) Shankarlal Modi; (4) Ramswarup Modi and (5) Jagmohan Modi.

( 3 ) IN the same month, the aforesaid members of the joint family formed a partnership firm under the name and style of Messrs. Bhimraj Banshidhar and carried on business at the same premises, viz. , 180, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta. The fact of the partial partition and the constitution of the firm were accepted by the income-tax department. Both the entities viz. , the HUF after